| OCR Text |
Show (h) That the burden of constructing storage reservoirs for conserving the surplus waters of an interstate stream, which otherwise would run to waste, rests upon the lower State/ and an upper State is not required to give up waters* which it may need* to a lower State, when such practice would result in waste of the cora.ion supply;" (i) That the appropriators and users of water in a State are represent- ed by the State under which their claims arise, and are bound by the limita- tions which may be imposed upon that State, either by Supreme Court decree or by interstate compact;1'/'* 27> 28 (j ) That the United States may perform its functions without conforming to the police regulations of a State; that* where such authority is involved (such, for instance, as the constitutional right to control navigable waters), it is immaterial if other benefits such as flood control., reclamation, con- servation apportionment of the waters between States, or the performance of an international obligation may result from the exercise of such constitu- tional power;^9' 30 (k) That the "Court cannot issue declaratory decrees""' 30 (since the decisions affecting Item (k) were rendered*^* 30 Congresshas empowered Fed- eral Courts to render declaratory decrees. However*.this authority may or may not be considered as applying only to Federal District Courts); (l) That, "to appropriate water means to take and divert a specified quantity thereof and put it to beneficial use in accordance with the laws of the State where such water is found and* by so doing, to acquire under such laws a vested right to take and divert from the same source, »and to use and consume the same quantity of water annually forever, subject only to the right of prior appropriators";30 (m) That an upper State is not relieved of its responsibility for dam- ages inflicted upon a lower State as the result of an increase of flow in an interstate stream by the drainage of lands in the upper State: "Right of a stat.e as parens patriae to bring suit to protect the general comfort, health and prosperity of its inhabitants, threatened by -the proposed or continued action of another state by prayer or in- junction is to be differentiated from its lost power as a sovereign to pre-vent and impose individual claims of its citizens as their trustees against a sister state. " The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States pro- vides: , 27:l5roming vs. Colorado, 286 U. S. l&k* (1932). 28 Hinderlider et al. vs. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Com- pany, 58 S. Ct. Rept. 803 (decided April 25, 1938)... 29 Wisconsin vs. Illinois et al. * 273 U. S* 395 (1929). 30 Arizona vs. California et al., 283 U. S. If.23 (1931). -90- |
